State v. Bradley D. Davis

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: February 19, 1999
• Docket: 01C01-9804-CC-00189
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED DECEMBER 1998 SESSION February 19, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Appellee, ) No. 01C01-9804-CC-00189 ) ) Rutherford County v. ) ) Honorable James K. Clayton, Jr., Judge ) BRADLEY DAVIS, ) (Indecent exposure) ) Appellant. )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

Gerald L. Melton John Knox Walkup District Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee and and Russell N. Perkins Georgia Blythe Felner Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee 201 West Main St. 425 Fifth Avenue North Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Nashville, TN 37243-0493

William C. Whitesell, Jr. District Attorney General 20 N. Public Square 303 Judicial Bldg. Murfreesboro, TN 37130

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

Joseph M. Tipton Judge OPINION

The defendant, Bradley Davis, appeals as of right following his conviction

in the Rutherford County Circuit Court for indecent exposure, a Class B misdemeanor.

He received a sentence of six months confinement in the Rutherford County

Workhouse to be served at seventy-five percent, suspended upon time served. The

defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We

affirm the judgment of conviction.

Our standard of review when the sufficiency of the evidence is questioned

on appeal is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.

2781, 2789 (1979). This means that we do not reweigh the evidence but presume that

the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and drawn all reasonable inferences

from the evidence in favor of the state. See State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547

(Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).

Indecent exposure is defined as the following:

[I]n a public place . . . or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises [a person]: (A) Intentionally: (i) Exposes such person’s genitals or buttocks to one (1) or more persons . . . and (B) Reasonably expects the acts will be viewed by another and such acts: (i) Will offend an ordinary viewing person; or (ii) Are for the purpose of sexual arousal and gratification of the defendant.

T.C.A. § 39-13-511(b)(i).

2 When viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the proof at trial

established that two women saw the defendant standing nude in the window of a

second floor apartment. One of the women saw the defendant a few hours later

crouching in the windowsill of the same apartment, and as she got closer to the

apartment, the defendant stood up and exposed his nude body to her.

After full consideration of the record, the briefs, and the law governing the

issue presented, we are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the

defendant’s conviction for indecent exposure and that no precedential value would be

derived from the rendering of a full opinion. Therefore, we conclude that the judgment

of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.

________________________________ Joseph M. Tipton, Judge CONCUR:

_________________________ John H. Peay, Judge

_________________________ Norma McGee Ogle, Judge